<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Calling user data "software" is a massive stretch. That's calling the user data clauses both outside the scope of open source licensing and so integral they can trigger an OSD violation, both at the same time. I don't agree with either, but if I was persuaded by either it would inherently exclude the other.<div><br></div><div>S.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:34 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">I concur with Richard. To the extent that the user data can be considered to be software, the license imposes terms upon software which is merely processed by the program. Thus, it runs awry of #9</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:21 AM Smith, McCoy <<a href="mailto:mccoy.smith@intel.com" target="_blank">mccoy.smith@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-1576834862792304610gmail-m_3161505051950359606WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">>></span><a name="m_-1576834862792304610_m_3161505051950359606______replyseparator"></a><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
License-discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Simon Phipps<br>
<b>>>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:06 AM<br>
<b>>>To:</b> <a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<b>>>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] For Discussion: Cryptographic Autonomy License (CAL) Beta 2<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">>></span>Can you explain why this is "problematic" in relation to OSD 9 please Richard? To my eyes the phrase "any modifications, elaborations, or implementations created by You that contain any licenseable
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">>></span>portion of the Work" clearly bounds the effect to derivations of the licensed software and not to unrelated software distributed alongside.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">That was my reaction as well.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Although I dislike use of the noun “elaborations” (what is that intended to encompass?) and assume “implementations” is intended to capture a reciprocal effect
via patents?</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-1576834862792304610gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Bruce Perens - Partner, <a href="http://OSS.Capital" target="_blank">OSS.Capital</a>.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="1"><br></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>